Darkscribes Community

@liaizon @linos @bonfire @pfefferle @smallcircles @evan @peertube @bookwyrm Mastodon can't do this but FEP-e232 implementations can embed multiple objects. I'll try to make two links here

Video

Poll

I finally wrote the section about rendering and submitted the proposal to the FEP repository: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/9098/fep-9098.md

@liaizon @julian @hongminhee

FEP-9098: Custom emojis has been published.

#FEP #ActivityPub

@julian It worked

https://community.nodebb.org/topic/b9473fc6-0091-4e6a-bf6c-98d930822c3d/creating-a-new-thread-on-a-nodebb-forum

@julian @jesseplusplus Works fine for me. There is a difference in collection type though (others use OrderedCollection).

I've added Decodon to the list of software that publish collections of posts: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/pulls/644

That's probably why I push so hard for discussions about fedi to take place on fedi.

Yeah, I am 100% on board with this.

By the way, Ghost already uses Discourse (https://forum.ghost.org/). Enabling federation there (for specific categories) could help reduce fragmentation @johnonolan

But do any of the other projects with their own dev forum (eg FunkWhale) have federation relationships with SH?

I haven't seen any posts from them.

It is not necessary to have a forum, though. I post from my own server (which is not a forum) whenever possible, that works pretty well for conversations. The only missing feature is an ability to create new topics. Some forums support topic creation using @group mention (Lemmy, NodeBB? cc @julian), but not Discourse.

SocialHub has been the most prominent place for cross-project collaboration for years. This is where the FEP process was born, after all. I suspect that the need to create an account there was a major barrier to entry, but this is no longer the case as the forum supports ActivityPub.

Cross-project forums like SocialHub can then have a dedicated category for each software they know about

There is such category already: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/c/software/14

It appears to be not federated, though.

-----

Aside:

For the size of the group [working on federating long form articles], which as you say is not large

I wonder what they meant by this. There are lots of projects that support long form content.

@julian

I still don't understand what is so great about this document.

Many fediverse applications are capable of publishing long-form text and they are interoperating. Mastodon had a couple of issues that prevented it from rendering certain HTML tags and prevented it from showing summaries, but those issues have been fixed. It is not clear what else could be improved.

For the most part, this FEP repeats definitions from ActivityStreams vocabulary. It introduces the useless preview mechanism. It also undermines the efforts to standardize thread backfilling by defining context in a different way. Am I missing something?

@benpate

@trwnh @steve @raucao I am not convinced that there is a problem in the first place.

ActivityPub says the identifier is https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public. JSON publishers use full URI. Server implementations that perform JSON-LD processing (e.g. Iceshrimp) also produce full URI, they figured it out. Then, why make a change?

If this issue is purely theoretical, then it must be addressed without changing ActivityPub.

@steve @trwnh @raucao I was talking about the specific requirement in ActivityPub.

ActivityStreams may matter in other cases (however, as we have seen, it is not entirely clear whether "X is Y" and "X uses Y" are normative statements).

@trwnh @raucao

"the identifier is foo" does not mean "the identifier MUST always be expressed using the literal sequence of characters f, o, o".

It does literally mean that. Furthermore, ActivityPub requires identifiers to be dereferenceable URIs, so even in an alternative reality where "X is Y" has a different meaning, as:Public is not a valid identifier.

ActivityStreams requirements don't matter because we're implementing ActivityPub, not ActivityStreams.

@mikedev I have no evidence that people at SocialCG are acting on behalf of any software project. Yes, all of them are Mastodon users, but I doubt Mastodon devs are super excited about the errata we've been discussing here or the overall direction of SocialCG's work.

And that is exactly the problem: there is no input from developers (I am the only active participant who maintains an ActivityPub application with more than 1 user).

@raucao @bengo

@julian It has to be accepted manually. I just did that.

@raucao

I don't know what @bengo means by EEE, but he also said

remove requirements of activitypub that have been in place for 7+ years, and without an explanation how the removal improves anything

And I gave you an example.

The OP even outlines 3 different options from his POV to start the discussion on it.

To understand what is wrong here you just need to compare those options with the actual text:

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#public-addressing

@raucao @bengo

There are other similar proposals, although they are less problematic. "Solutions" to non-problems are being proposed and JSON-LD is pushed aggressively despite being hugely unpopular among developers.

The whole thing needs to be forked.

@raucao @bengo

https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/404

It's quite long, but the summary is:

- AP says that the identifier of the special public collection is https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public (section 5.6).
- JSON-LD programs may replace https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public with as:Public. There is a note in AP that warns about this quirk.
- One proposed erratum re-frames the current normative text. as:Public is presented as a "correct" variant, and https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public is said to be "erroneous". Another proposed erratum replaces https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public with as:Public in all examples.

Why is it harmful?

- https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public is used everywhere. Even among those few implementations that do JSON-LD processing, most don't produce as:Public. The whole problem is made-up.
- as:Public and Public are not valid HTTP URIs, so you need to special-case them when you parse audiences. These variants should be banned, but what happens is the opposite.
- Specification will become even more confusing than it is now, because examples will contradict the normative text.

@raucao I don't know what @bengo is talking about, but yes, some of the proposed changes are outright harmful. For example, there is an attempt to label https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public special URI as invalid.

https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_errata/Proposed

@pernia @nomad Good to know!

@xwyqi @nomad It uses JSON-LD processing:

https://iceshrimp.dev/iceshrimp/Iceshrimp.NET/src/branch/dev/FEDERATION.md#supported-federation-protocols-and-standards

This is unfortunate.